May 13th, 2005
So… what do you all think about the RWA asking certain publishers to verify that they still qualify for recognition?
Is this quality control, a way to “protect” RWA members?
Or is it a witch hunt in an effort to rid the RWA of e-publishing cooties?
My understanding is that stems primarily from Five Stars highly unattractive move from paying a $2k advance, to paying the author $1k and the other company (a book packager?) $1k, which essentially has the author financially involved in the creation of the work.
And wouldn’t getting rid of THOSE books be such a little bonus on the side?
But they won’t get rid of them all, if any, because EC had no trouble at all meeting the requirements, from what I hear. 
by Shannon May 13th, 2005 at 7:20 pmI hadn’t heard about this. Any idea where I can go to learn more?
by Lynn May 13th, 2005 at 10:34 pmIt’s all word on the street for me, Lynn. I tried Googling but didn’t come up with anything.
by SylviaI’ve seen the wording on Chaplink, the chapter president’s loop. It can be interpreted a number of ways, but I tell you what, it’s a slap in the face to single out certain publishers who are making their authors high 5 and 6 digit yearly incomes to have to “prove” they’re legit, after they’ve already done so. I think in a lot of ways it is a witch hunt and that there’s a possibility of some heavy discrimination. But I hope that’s not the case. It would be a real shame. :pirate:
by Cheyenne McCray May 14th, 2005 at 9:22 amWith all it’s imperfections, I think RWA has no secret agenda to eliminate publishers. I think their bottom line is to protect writers. There are so many ways for authors to get screwed, given how desperate folks are to be published. I just can’t imagine them doing something like this out of spite.
by Jo May 14th, 2005 at 9:52 amAnd wouldn’t getting rid of THOSE books be such a little bonus on the side?
(Just peeking back in because I realized that the sarcasm seems to missing from what I said. This is most certainly not MY opinion, but what I could imagine others thinking. The way I wrote it makes it sound like I want my own publisher to go away, and wouldn’t that be stupid?):oops:
I guess I’m trying to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they’re just trying to protect Five Stars authors from an unfriendly change that occurred after they qualified.
But it doesn’t sound like every publisher got the letter—in a mass audit move—which means they were targetting specific ones, which I don’t like the sound of.
by Shannon May 14th, 2005 at 1:10 pmOnly certain publishers received the ‘letter’. I think RWA started out trying to protect the writer, which is all well and fine. The problem is it may very well be leading into something else. Like Chey said, the requirements can be interpreted MANY different ways. (There are certainly enough loopholes to get rid of any ‘undesirables’.) It’ll be really interesting to see the way the RWA decides to ‘view’ the new guidelines.
by Jordan May 14th, 2005 at 10:00 pmI think their bottom line is to protect writers.
Ditto. And there’s no need to send such a letter to all publishers. Only the ones (Five Star, MacMillan, et al) whose business practices are sliding into nonprofessionalism, and then perhaps to newer publishers to make sure they’re continuing to remain an avenue where writers CAN make a living - that the original recognition wasn’t a fluke. As an author, I want my publisher to meet the highest standards possible - and that has NOTHING to do with RWA! - because I do want to be able to live off my writing income!
by Alison Kent May 15th, 2005 at 8:13 amThere’s a big kerfuffle amongst UK romance authors about MacMillan starting up what amounts to a ‘vanity’ publishing enterprise…
by Wendywoo May 16th, 2005 at 5:28 am